cmort666
Member
From what I've read, they appear to be the nautical equivalent of the F-35: a dubious concept executed badly. I suspect that in any REAL conflict, they'd get slaughtered by the Chinese or even the Russians.
The US Navy just took ownership of its newest and largest Destroyer.
- Thread starter the ringo kid
- Start date
- Status
cmort666
Member
Interesting parallel:
Back in the '20s, the Japanese were engaged in an ambitious ship building program. However, their enthusiasm outpaced their technical design acumen. Some of their new ship designs were seriously top heavy. At least one of them capsized during an exercise, with heavy loss of life. They ended up having to reassess the designs of a bunch of ships, in some cases performing major modifications to improve their poor stability in rough seas.
garddogg56
Member
compaired to the DDG51'S we produce
pic's are from the first ride down the river.
Man that old ship looks like the Monitor or something. So angular.
It only has just two 155mm guns and two 30mm guns... I miss the days when ships were bristling with 40mm Bofors, 20mm Oerlikons, and .50 caliber Browning M2s.
It only has just two 155mm guns and two 30mm guns... I miss the days when ships were bristling with 40mm Bofors, 20mm Oerlikons, and .50 caliber Browning M2s.
cmort666
Member
Those are dubious for modern aircraft, and pretty much useless against missiles.Man that old ship looks like the Monitor or something. So angular.
It only has just two 155mm guns and two 30mm guns... I miss the days when ships were bristling with 40mm Bofors, 20mm Oerlikons, and .50 caliber Browning M2s.
On the other hand they're just the ticket for Iranian "boghammers" and similar low tech threats.
Almost like a submarine..
Is there anyplace to be 'on deck'? And I've have to have a picture window if I were to stay in there any length of time. Of course it would have to be stealth material and you probably couldn't see through it.
Is there anyplace to be 'on deck'? And I've have to have a picture window if I were to stay in there any length of time. Of course it would have to be stealth material and you probably couldn't see through it.
Ahhhh, for the days of iron men and wooden ships!!!! I remember them well!! Well, not quite, but almost. I'm not quite that old. Yet.
charlie sherrill
Member
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a ship is anything over 125 ft. and a boat is anything under 125 ft.
Grayback
US Veteran
In Navy parlance a "boat" is a submarine. Anything under 110'
is considered a "small craft" or a Launch.
is considered a "small craft" or a Launch.
muddocktor
Member
From all I've read about the Zumwalt Class, there are still concerns about the design being seaworthy under certain sea conditions, plus there have been big (read gigantic) cost overruns due mainly to tech that didn't work out and had to have substitute tech installed, mainly in propulsion.
@Club Gun Fan, the Seawolf Class submarines were stopped at 3, with the Jimmy Carter being the third and last of the class being built. And it was actually modified from the first 2 Seawolfs in that it had a 100 foot section inserted so that it could take the place of the USS Parche as the spy sub when it was decommissioned back in the 2004 time frame. The present attack submarine class being built are the Virginia Class and they are doing some design work on a new "flight" of them. And I've also read that they are doing preliminary design work on the next class of "Boomer" missile subs to replace the Ohio Class in the future.
@Club Gun Fan, the Seawolf Class submarines were stopped at 3, with the Jimmy Carter being the third and last of the class being built. And it was actually modified from the first 2 Seawolfs in that it had a 100 foot section inserted so that it could take the place of the USS Parche as the spy sub when it was decommissioned back in the 2004 time frame. The present attack submarine class being built are the Virginia Class and they are doing some design work on a new "flight" of them. And I've also read that they are doing preliminary design work on the next class of "Boomer" missile subs to replace the Ohio Class in the future.
Before there were engines the name ship described a sail plan like bark, schooner, or ketch. Regardless of size, if a vessel has three or more masts that are square rigged except for the spanker behind the mizzen and sails set between masts and between the foremast and bowsprit, it is a ship. Maximum sail size was limited by the strength of canvas forcing the largest vessels to be ship rigged. After there were no sails people continued to say they were booking passage across the ocean on a ship. A child playing with a ship rigged toy is in command of a ship and technically the admiral in change of an air craft carrier is not. However, I would not argue that with the admiral.What's the difference between a ship and a boat???
Your question was the title of a long running thread. I forget the wording of the title. In a nut shell there is no definition that separates questionable power vessels into ships and boats.
The craft (?) pictured in post #8 looks like something dreamed up by Jules Verne and Disney.
The "battleship" USS Maine was half the size of this "destroyer."
In a quick glance at Wikipedia the 155 mm rifles' projectiles stand out. They are 7 ft. 4 in. long and weigh 225 pounds. The rear portion is a rocket motor. They are guided and a range of 100 nautical miles is claimed. The warhead is a fragmentation type intended for shore bombardment.
It would have been less expensive to fuel up the Mighty Mo.
It would have been less expensive to fuel up the Mighty Mo.
Man that old ship looks like the Monitor or something. So angular.
It only has just two 155mm guns and two 30mm guns... I miss the days when ships were bristling with 40mm Bofors, 20mm Oerlikons, and .50 caliber Browning M2s.
With apologies to Crocodile Dundee...
"That's not a warship...THIS is a warship!"
Attachments
calmex
Member
Yes, but is he secretly Canadian? And when he speaks, can he make Each. Single. Word. Into. It's own. Sentence?
If so, then he's the real thing.
Last edited:
The Zumwalt did OK in tests in Lake Pend Oreille in ID where they test all new submarine designs but the worthiness in high sea states is questionable.
And freeboard is low.
Just as the USS Perry FFG7 I was on, not good in high sea states.
Meta-center is too close the center of gravity.
Plus no expansion joint.
They added several tons of lead to the keel to correct that problem.
And freeboard is low.
Just as the USS Perry FFG7 I was on, not good in high sea states.
Meta-center is too close the center of gravity.
Plus no expansion joint.
They added several tons of lead to the keel to correct that problem.
OP
the ringo kid
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 20,895
- Reaction score
- 22,823
OP
the ringo kid
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 20,895
- Reaction score
- 22,823
You know, someone above mentioned that this ship looks like something from a fantasy film. You know what, it looks more liks the sub used in a James Bond film (Moonraker I think?) that had a ship with huge doors - hollow on the insides, and were snaring submarines and holding then there.
The oilers will be sneaking Lyman bullet molds into work in their lunch boxes!
Seriously, this is a heavy cruiser that packs the least shore bombardment punch of all the heavy cruisers the USN has operated. Perhaps they are thinking precision long range anti-terrorist SEAL support.
- Status
Similar threads
